Chapter One: Overview of Government

1.1. Definitions of Government

Below are some prominent definitions of government.

 Government is the central agency or interrelated organizations exercising over all control
over a society of territorially delimited subdivisions of a society. As such, government is the
most essential component and administrative wing of the state.

 It is agent of the state, which works to promote and safeguard the interests of its
population and maintain its territorial boundaries.

 Government refers to the set of institutions and organs that make laws (legislative body),
implements public policies (executive body) and law interpreting body (judiciary body). As
such, government is a group of people within the state who have the ultimate authority to act
on behalf of the state

 Government refers to the institutional processes through which collective and usually
binding laws and decisions are made through its various branches.

 Government differs from other organization because of its comprehensive authority- rule are
applied to all members of society, involuntary membership-most people initially become
citizens of a nation and subject to its rule without any deliberate choice or conscious act,
authoritative rule –are generally recognized to be more binding up on all members of society
than the rules of all other organization, and legitimate monopoly of overwhelming force.

1.2. Sources of Government Power

What do you think is the sources of government power?

 In democracy, government comes into power through election or consent of the peoples.

 However, in undemocratic/authoritarian systems, the source of government power could be

either force or divine power or tradition.

 Military governments, for example, relay on force or coercion to govern the people. Since
they usually face problem of popular acceptance i.e. legitimacy, force is often used to calm
the popular resistance.
 On the other hand, Monarchical political systems seek to justify their political power or
office on the grace of God or Allah. The rulers try to convince the people that they are born
to rule or they are ordained by Super-Natural power.

1.3. Main Functions of Government

In modern state, government functions have greatly expounded with the emergence of
government as the most active force vehicle in political, social, and economic development.
Accordingly, the major purposes and functions of government include the following.

A. Self-preservation: Any government must keep its state from internal and external threats.
That is, order, predictability, internal security and external defense are among the major
functions whether it is democratic or authoritarian

B. Management of Conflict (Supervision and Resolution of Conflict): Governments usually

develop and consolidate their institutions and procedures for conflict management. It is obvious
that conflict is inevitable and inescapable characterize human beings. Therefore, building and
applying institutions for resolving and managing conflict is an indispensable function for
developing and consolidating peace, security and stability and tranquility.

C. Regulation the Economy: Government plays the role of regulating the economy like
regulation of policies such as agriculture, industry, transportation, taxes, tariffs…etc. Moreover,
governments usually play role on controlling the distribution of resources in their societies.
Hence, it is the government that determines which resources are to be publicly controlled and
which are to be in private hands.

D. Protection of Political, Human, Social and Economic Rights of its Citizens: especially
those rights enshrined in the constitution of state.

E. Provision of necessary Goods and/or services to the public: Governments, especially in

developing countries like Ethiopia, usually participate in providing necessary goods and services
to its citizens. Such goods and services include: provision of education, health care, development
of public works, conservation of natural resources, developing water supply, electricity,
telecommunication…etc. to the public.
1.4. Forms of Government/Classification of Government
1. Old classification of government
The earliest and most famous system of classification was developed by the Greek philosopher
Aristotle in the 4th c B.C. He classified government into the following categories;
i. Monarchy- a rule by one person based hereditary line or by blood decent. or one man
rule.
There are two types of monarchy.

a) Traditional monarchy. the king or the queen maintain his/her position by claim of
legitimate blood decent than their appeal as popular leaders. For example. Hohenzollerns
in Germany, Hapsburgs in Austro-Hungary, Romania, in Russia, Solomonic in Ethiopia
…etc.
b) Constitutional Monarchy. The king or the queen is ceremonial head of the state, an
indispensable figure in all great official occasions and a symbol of national unity and
authority of the state but lacking real power e.g. Britain, Japan …etc.

ii. Aristocracy-a rule/ power seized by few enlightened and organized groups.
iii. Oligarchy- a rule by few wealthy people
iv. Tyranny- a rule by a dictator based on his/her interest
v. Polity- a rule by many
vi. Democracy- a rule exercised in the interest of all people
2. Modern Classification Of Government
 There are two forms of government;
1) Democratic government
It can take the following forms;
i) Established/consolidated democracies-where democratic elements are highly
developed
It is characterized by ;
 Voter’s verdict/decision is the acceptable method of changing rulers
 Competitive, free and fair election
 Limited government and limited terms of office
 Existence of equality of political rights and protection of civil rights
  Multi-party system
ii) Semi-democracies
 It a type of government which contains both democratic and authoritarian elements
iii) New democracies
 It is created on the ashes of communism and military rule and where democratic
elements are not well consolidated b/c of political and economic problems,
authoritarian legacies and older and pre-democratic traditions etc.
2) Authoritarian/Non-Democratic Government
 The term authoritarian can be used to show any form government that is no-democratic
and it covers political systems which contrast with democratic system.
 Feature of authoritarian government;
 Does not allow free, fair and competitive election system to determine who rules
 Leaders impose one political group or interest over everyone else
 Restrict/limit/deny public participation and effective control of the government
 Institutions of representations/election, legislature/ are weak while institutions of
power/military, police and bureaucracy / are strong.
 It uses high degree of coercion to obtain obedience, violations of rights
 Availability of high degree of corruption etc.
 Authoritarian /non-democratic regimes can be take any of the following forms;
a) Dictatorship- it is a political system that consists of an individual ruling based on
his/her own interest(tyranny)
b) Totalitarianism- a system which attempts to control all aspects of the society i.e, one
party hold all aspects of the society( political, economic, social, military, judiciary
power)
c) Military rule- government run by a group of officers y taking power through coup
deta
d) Dynastic rule- government rule by hereditary rulers, exercising or holding complete
political power
e) Theocracy- government actually lead by religious leaders
 1.5. Systems of Government

 Based on how government is organized/formed and the power relations that exists
between the legislative and executive branches of government, we can classify systems
government as follows;
1) Parliamentary system
 It is a form of government in which both the legislative and the executive branches are
fused/combined together i.e., member of the executive can be a legislature or not strictly
separated
 In this system, government is formed as follows;
First, the people/voters elect their representatives to the legislature/parliament
Then the prime minister/head of government is selected from members of the
parliament who have a majority seats/50%+)
Finally, the prime minister nominates members of the ministers largely or entirely
out of members of the parliament to form the executive branch
E.g., Britain, Canada, Germany, Italy, Australia, Israel, Ethiopia etc.
 Principal Features of parliamentary system;
 The executive is formed by parliamentary election i.e, there is no separately
election for chief executive
 The executive personnel (prime minister and cabinet ministers) are selected from
the parliament. i.e., most or all members of the cabinet (council of ministers) are
usually members of the parliament/ Assembly. And usually, the party or
cooperative coalitions of parties that have majority seat or control that take on
executive responsibilities in addition to their legislative chores.
 This shows that members of the parliament can also be members of the executive
at the same time
 The executives are accountable to the parliament because the executives can only
stay on power if they get support (confidence) of the parliament. At any time if
the majority of the parliament members do not want the current government to
continue in the office, they can remove from the office through the ‘vote of no
confidence’
  The prime minister can also dissolve the parliament and can call for a fresh or
new election. The government can, in most cases, dissolve the parliament. As
such, just as the parliament holds the cabinet (council of ministers) in jeopardy,
the leader of the cabinet (usually the PM) has the right to have the parliament
disbanded, with the consent of the majority members of the parliament.
 The post of head of government and the post of head of state is separated .i.e, the
two posts are assumed by different person/individuals.
2) The presidential system

Presidential system of government is a form of government, which is chiefly characterized by

strict separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government.
Examples of presidential system of governments are: the USA, Argentina, Mexico, Costa Rica
etc.

The distinguishable features/characteristics of a presidential system of government include

the following:

 It is a system of government where the executive branch is separately elected from the
legislature branch
 Both members of the parliament and the president are directly accountable to the people
 An individual cannot be member the legislative and executive branch at the same time b/c the
elected president establishes the executive by selecting individuals who are not member of
the parliament
 The president and cabinet ministers are not accountable the parliament and they do not need
the support of the parliament to stay on power. That means the legislature cannot dissolve the
executive from the their office by the vote of no confidence except when the president is
found to be commit a serious crime and abuse his power(Impeachment). The process of
impeachment is provided to remove the president in case he held quality of violating the
Oath of office. The president is under an oath that he will defend and protect the constitution
of the state. In case he does otherwise, the process of impeachment may be cause to remove
him from office. Usually the power of impeachment is given to the legislative.
 In the same way, the president cannot dissolve the parliament and call for new/general
election
 The posts of head of state and head of government is not separated or not assumed by
different individuals. i.e, the elected president both the head of government and head of state
and plays both the role of chief executive and the symbolic/ceremonial roles.
 Separation of powers: presupposes that each of the branches of government (the legislative
and the executive) should be entrusted to separate organs of government respectively. It
presupposes the fragmentation of government in such a way as to defend liberty and keep
tyranny at bay. The parliament, the presidency, and the Supreme Court are separate
institutions in the sense that there are no overlapping functions and powers permitted but
nevertheless, possess the ability to constrain one another’s powers. This is called check-and-
balance. In this regard, for example Congress in the USA has the ability to make law. But,
when necessary the president can veto it, but the congress can, in turn, override the veto with
2/3 majorities in both Houses (the Senate and the People’s Representatives).

3) Hybrid/semi-presidential system of government

 It is a system of government that reflects the feature of both a prime minister and the
president who are active participant in the day to day activities of the government.
 But, it differs from the parliamentary system in that it has popularly elected president
who is not a ceremonial figure head
 It also differ from the presidential system in that it has an executive prime minister
who has responsible to the parliament
 Of course, the division of power between the president and prime minister is vary
greatly from country to country
 E.g, in France, the president is responsible for foreign policy while the prime
minister is responsible for domestic policy
 It is followed by counties such as Egypt, Finland, Portugal, Russia, France and etc.

1.6. Major Organs/Branches of Government

 Government is not a monolithic entity. It has different institutions. In the contemporary
world, the government is composed of three major organs –legislature, executive and
 judiciary. More often these three institutions are termed as organs or Branches of modern
government.
 The roles and responsibilities of each organs of government are separated to the extent
that one branch of government can check the power of the other.
A) The Legislature branch-it is also known by the name parliament

 The nomenclature of such organ is different in different countries. In the USA, the Senate
and the Peoples Representatives are generally referred as the Congress. In United
Kingdom, the House of Lords and the House of the Commons are generally termed as the
Parliament. In France the Assembly is the term used to describe the legislative organs.
 It performs multiple functions even if its function is vary from country to countries
depending on a number of factors:

1. Statue/law making. Every legislative has the power to make statues. The concept of
statues making is more accurate to describe what the legislature actually does the law
making.
2. Representation: It plays representative role in providing a link between government
and the people. Thus, the people (the governed) are represented in the legislative
branch of government.
3. Oversight/Control of Administration: The legislative body plays pivotal role in
supervising the executive who is supposed to administer by implementing the laws and
decisions passed by the legislative. That is, the legislative body plays great role in
scrutinizing and over sighting meaning that assemblies/the legislative body has the
power to be scrutinizing body, to check and balance the executive body and to deliver
responsible or accountable government.
4. Propose Constitutional making/Amending: The legislative body of the government
can play or have the function of constitutional making/amending. But, how to
undertake the constitutional making/amending may vary from country to country
having various state structures. For example, in a federal form of state structure, the
constitutional amending or modification is usually carried by a joint agreement
between the federal and regional/state government by following a certain set of
procedures.
 5. Electoral and deposing functions: The legislative body plays the function of electing
the Prime minister in a parliamentary form of government. In addition they also play
voting on motion of “no confidence” to reelect and defeat the incumbent prime
minister, etc. Added to this is that, in a presidential system, the legislative body plays
the role of removal the president by the principle of impeachment.
6. Financial functions: The legislative body holds the “power of the purse”, i.e., to
determine the nature and amount of taxes and appropriations. It also plays the role
budget approval presented by, for example each ministry. Government can legally
spend only funds appropriated and approved by the legislative body.
7. Ratify/Approve treaties
8. Investigative functions: Most often, legislatives through established “selective
committees” are engaged in digging up information it desires on matters not covered
by its “legal standing committee.”
 The structure of parliaments- Bicameral or unicameral

 The institution of the legislature could be mono-cameral assembly-which consists

of elected individuals or it bi-cameral assemblies wherein there exists two houses
which are entrusted to make laws in different issue areas
 Some two-third of the legislative bodies in the world have two chambers, an
upper house (the US Senate, the British House of Lords, or the German Budestrat)
and the lower house (the US House of Representatives, the British House of
Common and the German Bundestang). These are called bicameral (two
chambers) legislatures.
 Despite its name, the upper house usually has less and sometimes much less
power than the lower house; only the two houses of the US congress are co-equal
 A small number of parliaments are unicameral (one chamber) such as China’s
National Peoples’ Congress, Sweden’s Riksdag, and Israel’s Knesset.
 Yugoslavia once experimented with a five-chambered parliament.
 South Africa has a various (and properly temporary) three-chambered parliament
in the past with one house each for whites, mixed-race peoples, and East Indians.
The majority of black population was not represented in the national parliament of
South Africa.
 What do you think is the importance of having bicameral legislative organs?
 The reason for two chambers is clear in federal systems. The upper house
represents the component parts of the federal system, and the lower house
represents districts based on population. The utility of an upper house in unitary
systems, however, is unclear.
B) The Executive Body
In its broadest sense, the executive branch of government is a branch of government
responsible for the implementation of the laws, rules, policies, and decisions made by
the legislature. The executive branch of government extends from the head of
government and head of the state to the members of enforcement agencies.

Focus: Political Executive vs. Bureaucratic Executives.

Political executives refer to all or almost all of officials elected politicians, ministers, in
parliamentary system, drawn from the parliament and accountable to the parliament. Whereas,
bureaucratic executives are those office people appointed and professional civil servants whose
job is offer advice and administer policy, subject to the requirements of political neutrality and
legal to their ministers.
 Major Powers and Functions of the Executive Body.
 Enforcement functions: the core/the chief function of executive body is to enforce
(implement) all laws, rules, decisions made by the legislative body and the judiciary body
(court’s decision).
 Formulation and execution of administrative policy: executive body boldly exercise
formulation of regulation (sub-legislative power and issues law or rules) and allocates
funds to various public activities.
 Control of Military forces: the executive branch has the power to determine how and
where troops, the military, warplanes and ships may be used in period of conflict and
peace.
 Control of foreign relations: the executive branch is charged with conducting of foreign
relations with other states. Besides, the chief executive also grants or withholds
recognition to the governments of foreign state. In addition, the chief executive,
ambassadors and other Foreign Service officers.
  The executives performs both symbolic/ceremonial/ and effective leadership functions.

 Giving honor/award, receiving or meeting foreign dignitaries/ambassador, opening

ceremonial functions, officiate at holiday celebration are ceremonial functions performed
by the president in parliamentary forms of government

 Crisis leadership: A crucial power that the political executive has over the
assembly/parliament is its ability to take swift and decisive action when crises break out
in either domestic or international politics is invariably the executive that responds, by
virtue of its hierarchical structure and the scope it provides for personal leadership.
C) The Judiciary Body:
The Judiciary body is a branch of government to decide legal disputes in interpreting the laws. It
comprises the courts and judges who hears and decides on the cases presented. The primary and
chief function of a judiciary body is to undertake adjudication or interpretation of laws.

This organ, both in principle and practices, must be independent from any kind of external
influences. B/c its independence is fundamental to the rule of law and the protection of rights and
liberties of citizens. So, major functions of Judiciary body can be summarized as follows;

1. Adjudication: The courts see and examine various cases and gives decision(s) on the cases
presented.
2. Formulating case law: Case law is developed where judges must decide how a law, whether
common or statute, should apply in a particular case. This kind of law is often referred to as
judge-made law because the interpretation is made by the judge in each case and becomes
binding on all other courts.
3. Protection of individual rights: The judiciary body has great role in protecting the
constitutionally guaranteed rights of individuals mainly through the process of due process of
law. For example the judiciary plays a great role in the protection against unreasonable or
arbitrary laws and procedures by the government and its institutions at any level.
 Ways of Judicial Election

There are four possible ways of judicial election;

i) Popular election- electing judges by the people directly
 ii) Election by assembly-electing judges by legislature
iii) Appointment by executives- especially by chief executive
iv) Cooption by judiciary- electing judges by judges themselves or selection by a new
judge usually by the vote of existing membership

Chapter Two: Understanding Politics

2.1. Politics and Political Science
2.1.1. Definitions of Politics
 Politics refers to the activity through which people make, preserve and amend general and
binding rules under which they live. It is inextricably linked to the phenomena of conflict and
cooperation.
 Politics is defined as the art of government, as public affairs, as non-violent resolution of
disputes, and as power and distribution of resources.
  Politics portrayed as exercise of power or authority, as a process of collective decision-
making, as the allocation of scarce resources, as an arena of deception or manipulation and so
forth.
 Politics is a social activity that arises out of interaction between or among people, and do not
occur on island. It develops out of diversity, the existence of a range of opinions, wants,
needs or interests.
 Politics involves expression of differing opinions, competition between rival goals or clash
of irreconcilable interests. In light of this, where spontaneous agreement or natural harmony
occurs, politics cannot be found.
Three distinct conceptions of politics can be identified. In the first place, politics is associated with
the formal institutions of government and the activities which take place therein. Second, politics is
commonly linked to public life and public activities, in contrast to what is thought of as private or
personal. Third, politics is related to the distribution of power, wealth and resources at every
level of social existence.

2.1.2 Contending Views in Understanding and Explaining Politics

The different views of politics examined here are as follows:

1. Politics as the Art of Government

Politics as the art of government, is not considered as a science...but an art'. By the art of
government we mean, the exercise of control within society through making and enforcement of
collective decisions. This is the classical definition of politics developed in Ancient Greece.

The word 'politics' is derived from polis, meaning literally city-state. Ancient Greek society was
divided into a collection of independent city-states, each of which possessed its own system of
government, Athens being the largest and most influential one. In this light, politics can be
understood to refer to the affairs of the polis-in effect, 'what concerns the polis'. The modern form
of this definition is therefore 'what concerns the state'.

The traditional view the notion of politics implies 'what concerns the state' reflected in the
tendency for academic study to focus upon the personnel and machinery of government. In this
case, to study politics is to study government or to study the exercise of authority. In this view,
politics is defined as 'authoritative allocation of values'-encompassing various processes through
which government responds to pressures from the larger society by allocating benefits, rewards or
penalties. 'Authoritative values' are ones that are widely accepted in society, and are considered
binding by the mass of citizens. In light of this, politics is associated with 'policy'-with formal or
authoritative decisions that establish a plan of action for the community.

Politics is what takes place within a polity-a system of social organization centred upon the
machinery of government. Therefore, politics is practiced in the cabinet rooms, legislative
chambers, government departments and the like, and it is engaged in by a limited and specific group
of people, notably politicians, civil servants and lobbyists. This means that most people, institutions
and social activities can be regarded as being 'outside' politics. Businesses, schools and educational
institutions, community groups, families and so on are in this sense 'nonpolitical', because they are
not engaged in 'running the country'.

In a narrower sense, politics can be seen as the equivalent of party politics and the realm of 'the
political' is restricted to those state actors who are consciously motivated by ideological beliefs, and
who seek to advance them through membership of a formal organization such as a political party.
This is the sense in which politicians are described as 'political', whereas civil servants are seen as
'nonpolitical', being act in neutral and professional fashion. Similarly, judges are taken to be
'nonpolitical' while they interpret the laws impartially and in accordance with the available
evidence, but they may be accused of being 'political' if their judgment is influenced by personal
preferences or some other form of bias.

2. Politics as Public Affairs

In this case, the distinction between 'the political' and 'the non-political' coincides with the division
between an essentially public sphere of life and what can be thought of as a private sphere. In his
famous work-Politics, Aristotle declared that 'man is by nature a political animal', by which he
meant that it is only within political community that human beings can live 'the good life'. From
this viewpoint, politics is an ethical activity concerned with creating a 'just society'-it is what
Aristotle called the 'master science', that is, nothing less than the activity through which human
beings attempt to improve their lives and create the Good Society.

However, where should the line between 'public' life and 'private' life be drawn?
 The traditional distinction between the public realm and the private realm conforms to the
division between the state (the institutions of the state-the apparatus of government, the courts, the
police, the army, the social-security system and so forth) can be regarded as 'public' in the sense that
they are responsible for the collective organization of community life and they are funded at the
public's expense, out of taxation) and civil society (civil society consists of institutions such as the
family and kinship groups, private businesses, trade unions, clubs, community groups and so on that
are 'private' in the sense that they are set up and funded by individual citizens to satisfy their own
interests, rather than those of the larger society).

Figure 1.1: Two views of the public/private divide

Public Private

The state: apparatus of government Civil society: autonomous bodies, business, trade
unions, clubs, families, and so on.

Public Private

Public realm: politics, commerce, work, art, culture,Personal realm: family and domestic life.
and so on.

Source: Heywood (2002)

On the basis of this 'public/private' division, politics is restricted to the activities of the state itself
and the responsibilities that are properly exercised by public bodies. Those areas of life that
individuals can and do manage for themselves (the economic, social, domestic, personal, cultural
and artistic spheres, and so on) are clearly 'nonpolitical'.

3. Politics as Compromise and Consensus

The third conception of politics is seen as a means of resolving conflict, that is, by compromise,
conciliation and negotiation, rather than through force and naked power. This is what politics is
portrayed as 'the art of the possible'. Such a definition is inherent in the everyday use of the term.
For instance, the description of a solution to a problem as a 'political' solution implies peaceful
debate and arbitration, as opposed to what is often called a 'military' solution. This view of politics
has been traced back to the writings of Aristotle, in particular, to his belief that what he called
'polity' is the ideal system of government. As of Bernard Crick (2002), politics is:

the activity by which differing interests within a given unit of rule are conciliated by giving them a
share in power in proportion to their importance to the welfare and the survival of the whole
community.

In this view, the key to politics is a wide dispersal of power. Accepting that conflict is inevitable and
this is why Crick portrayed politics as 'that solution to the problem of order which chooses
conciliation rather than violence and coercion'. Such a view of politics is based on faith in the
efficacy of debate and discussion, as well as on the belief that society is characterized by consensus
rather than by irreconcilable conflict.

4. Politics as power

The fourth definition of politics is both the broadest and the most radical. Rather than confining
politics to a particular sphere (the government, the state or the 'public' realm) this view sees politics
at work in all social activities and in every corner of human existence. In light of this, ‘politics’ is
at the heart of all collective social activity, formal and informal, public and private, in all human
groups, institutions and societies'. In this sense, politics takes place at every level of social
interaction (can be found within families and amongst small groups of friends just as much as
amongst nations and on the global stage).

In its broadest sense, politics concerns the production, distribution and use of resources in the
course of social existence. Politics is, in essence, power-the ability to achieve a desired outcome,
through whatever means. This notion was neatly that 'the personal is the political'. This slogan neatly
encapsulates the radical feminist belief that what goes on in domestic, family and personal life is
intensely political, and it is the basis of all other political struggles. This view was summed up by
Kate Millett in Sexual Politics (1969), in which she defined politics as 'power structured
relationships, arrangements whereby one group of persons is controlled by another'. Feminists can
therefore be said to be concerned with 'the politics of everyday life'. In their view, relationships
within the family, between husbands and wives, and between parents and children, are every bit as
political as relationships between employers and workers, or between governments and citizens.
Marxists have used the term 'politics' in two senses. For one thing, 'politics' refers to the apparatus
of the state-'merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another'. In this case, political
power is rooted in the class system; as Lenin put it, 'politics is the most concentrated form of
economics'.

Secondly, politics is portrayed in largely negative terms-it is about oppression and subjugation.
Radical feminists hold that society is patriarchal (in which women are systematically subordinated
and subjected to male power). Marxists traditionally argued that politics in a capitalist society is
characterized by the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. Marxists believe that 'class
politics' will end with the establishment of a classless communist society. This, in turn, will
eventually lead to the 'withering away' of the state, bringing politics in the conventional sense also to
an end.

2.1.3 Understanding Political Science

 Political Science Defined:
 Political science is defined as the science of the state, for it deals with organized political
units, historical survey of the origin of the state with its essential elements, and the modern
state with its highly specialized government.
 Political science is defined as a study of the development of political ideas and theories.
 Political science is the discipline that analyzes the fundamental nature of the government, its
organization, its relation to the individuals that compose it, and state-state relations, and
compare and classify their governments and their functions.
 In general, political science deals with power relations, authority, legitimacy, governance,
the process of political divisions and distribution of power between d/f levels and branches of
government, knowledge of political theory etc

The political science’s leading subdivisions are:

1. Historical political science: the origin and development of political forms.

2. Political theory: a philosophic study of the fundamental concepts of the state.
3. Descriptive political science: an analysis and description of existing political forms.
4. Applied political science: the principles that should control the administration of political
affairs; the proper province and functions of government.

 Political Science and Its Fields/Branches

Political science is organized into several fields: comparative politics, international relations,
political theory, public administration, public policy, and political behavior.

A. Comparative Politics: Comparative politics involves study of the politics of different

countries. This area specialist tends to compare and investigate the similarities and
differences in the politics of nations. Political scientists who undertake these comparisons are
often motivated by the need to develop and test theories—for example, theories of why
revolutions happen. For example, political scientists have found many similarities between
the transitions from authoritarian rule to democracy in Latin America and Eastern Europe in
the 1980s and 1990s.

B. International Relations: International relations are the study of the international system
which involves interactions between nations, international organizations, and multinational
corporations. The two traditional approaches used by political scientists in the study of
international relations are realism (emphasizes the danger of the international system, where
war is always a possibility and the only source of order is the balance of power) and
liberalism (is more idealistic and hopeful, emphasizing the problem-solving abilities of
international institutions such as the United Nations and World Trade Organization). In 1991,
after the Soviet Union dissolved and the Cold War ended, the balance of opinion briefly
shifted in favor of liberalism, but realists were quick to point to the potential for future
international conflicts.

C. Political Theory: Political theory involves the study of philosophical thought about politics
from ancient Greece to the present; the interpretation and development of concepts such as
freedom, democracy, human rights, justice, and power; the development of models for
government, such as participatory democracy or constitutional systems; and the logic that
political scientists use in their inquiries. Political theory overlaps law, philosophy, and the
other fields of political science.

D. Public Administration: Political scientists are interested in public administration-study

government organizations and their relation to other parts of government, investigate how
these organizations work, and try to devise methods of improving them. For example, David
Osborne and Ted Gaebler’s book Reinventing Government (1992) inspired many national,
 state, and local governments to adopt more-competitive and less bureaucratic ways of
delivering services to the public.

E. Public Policy: The field of public policy involves the study of specific policy problems and
governmental responses to them. Political scientists involved in the study of public policy
attempt to devise solutions for problems of public concern. They study issues such as health
care, pollution, and the economy. Public policy overlaps comparative politics in the study of
comparative public policy; with international relations in the study of foreign policy and
national security policy; and with political theory in considering ethics in policy making.

F. Political Behavior: Political behavior involves the study of how people involve themselves
in political processes and respond to political activity. The field emphasizes the study of
voting behavior, which can be affected by social pressures; the effects of individual
psychology-such as emotional attachments to parties or leaders; and the rational self-interests
of voters. The results of these studies are applied during the planning of political campaigns,
and influence the design of advertisements and party platforms.

 Political Science and Its relation to Allied Sciences.

In order to convey a comprehensive idea of the nature and scope of political science, it is necessary
to outline the field of knowledge that it covers and to indicate the boundary lines that separate it
from other allied sciences. Political science stands in close affiliation with the other social sciences,
as a subdivision of a broader field, or as a general field including more specialized subdivisions, or
as an allied science having points of contact. For example:

1) Political science and sociology. Sociology is the science of society-deals with man in all his
social relations. These may vary from commercial or religious interests, almost world-wide
in scope, to the single family or the narrowest fraternal group; and such organizations are, in
many cases, little concerned with state boundaries. Political science, the science of the state,
deals with man in his political relations alone. It views mankind as divided into organized
political societies, each with its government which creates and enforces law. Political science
is thus narrower than sociology, and is, in a general sense, one of its subdivisions.
2) Political science and history. History is a record of past events and movements, their causes
and interrelations. It includes a survey of conditions and developments in economic,
religious, intellectual, and social affairs, as well as a study of states, their growth and
organization, and their relations with one another. Economic, religious, intellectual, and
social institutions, however, have no bearing upon political science, except as they affect the
life of the state. On the other hand, political history furnishes the major part of the raw
material for political science. From its data concerning numerous concrete states are drawn
the general conclusions of political theory as to the fundamental nature of the state; and on
the basis of its information is built up the science of comparative government. Its records of
past states, with their successes and failures, also throw light upon the vexed questions of the
best form of government under given conditions, and of the proper functions of governmental
activity. History gives thus, as has been aptly said, "the third dimension of political science."
3) Political science and economics. Economics, the science of wealth, deals with man's
individual and social activity in the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth,
under conditions both physical and psychological. In so far as this activity is individual, or
concerns any social organization except the state, its relation to political science is remote.
An important part of economics, however, deals with the activity of the state in regard to
wealth. Such subjects as taxation, currency, and governmental, industries form a field
common to both sciences, economics viewing them as certain forms of man's total activity
with regard to wealth; political science viewing them as certain functions of governmental
administration. In addition, economic conditions materially affect the organization and
development of the state; and the state in turn, by its laws, frequently modifies economic
conditions.
4) The rise of feudal government on a basis fundamentally economic is a good example of the
former; and even a casual acquaintance with modern conditions shows the close connection
existing between business and politics. The way in which the state may influence economic
conditions is illustrated by corporation legislation, tariff laws, and labor regulations.
5) Political science and ethics. Ethics, the science that deals with conduct in so far as conduct
is considered right or wrong, also has points of contact with political science. The origin of
moral ideas is closely connected with the origin of the state. Both arose in that early group
life, based on kinship and religion, when custom was law and when moral and political ideas
 were not differentiated. With the development of civilization and the conflict between private
and group interests, custom gave way to conscience, or individual morality, on the one hand,
and to law, or political morality, on the other. Right and wrong with individual or social
sanction were distinguished from rights and obligations with political sanction. Yet the
relation between morals and law is still close. Moral ideas, when they become widespread
and powerful, tend inevitably to be crystallized into law, since the same individuals that form
social standards are those that comprise the state. On the other hand, laws that attempt to
force moral ideas in advance of their time usually fail in administration. Besides, it is from
the ethical standpoint alone that the state is ultimately justified; and the proper functions of
government must be determined in last analysis on the basis of the ethical compromise that
secures the greatest good to the individual and at the same time promotes the greatest
common welfare.
6) Political Science and Jurisprudence. Jurisprudence, which may be briefly defined as the
science of law, is properly classed as a subdivision of political science. The principles of law
in general, and the specific rules that determine the organization of a given state, its relation
to its citizens, and the regulations that it enforces among them, together with such agreements
among states as approach definite legal statement and enforcement,—all are included in a
science that attempts a complete explanation of state existence and activities.

7. Political Science vs. Public Administration

Public administration is very closely related to the study of political science. Public administration
and political science has close mutual relationship. It is a fact that “an understanding of politics is the
key to an understanding of public administration; politics and administration are the two sides of a
single coin”. In some cases, politics and administration ‘are so inter-mingled and confused that a
clear distinction is difficult”- However, in technical understanding there is a sharp distinction
between politics and administration. In their view, politics was concerned with laying down of
policies, whereas administration was concerned with executing these policies effectively and
efficiently. Woodrow Wilson was the first person who pointed out in 1887 that both these
disciplines were quite separate from each other with their own specialized field. In his article on
“study of administration”, he said “the field of administration is the field of business”.
Administration lies outside sphere of politics. Administrative questions are not political questions.
Although politics sets the tasks far administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices.
The field of administration is a field of business, it is removed from the hurry and strife of politics
and it at the most, stands apart even from the debatable ground of constitutional study”.

Table 1: The points of distinction between political and administrative officers

Political Officers Administrative Officers

 Amateur  Professional
 Non-technical  Technical
 Partisan  Non-partisan
 Temporary  Permanent
 More public contacts  Less public contacts
 More legislative contacts  Less legislative contacts
 More policy formulating  Less policy formulating
 More decisions  More advisory
 More Co-ordination  More performing
 Influence by popular opinion  Influence by technical data collected from
study and research.

Political processes of election, legislation and of defining the broad objectives of administration as
well as the manipulation of political power provide the motivating force for the wheels of
government. On the other hand, administration and administrators are mainly concerned with the
administrative processes of gathering and digesting data, offering, suggestions based on facts for the
purposes of policy formulation and helping to implement same. Therefore, for harmonious co-
existence between politics and public administration, there must be a lot of give-and-take between
the politicians and the administration.

But in spite of the intimacy between them, we should not over-look the limits of their fields. There is
no denying the fact that there is difference between the duties of political officers and those of
administrative officers, but the differences is more of a degree rather than of a kind. If we look to the
top administrators, we will find that most of what they do is political in nature”. Although,
apparently, policy-making is the function of the ministers and legislatures, yet most of the ground
work is done by the administrators behind the scenes.
 2.2. The Concepts of Power, Authority and Legitimacy
 Power Defined:

The concepts of power occupied significant position in the modern discussion of politics since the
beginning of 20th century. It becomes so inevitable now a day that it is applied not only to describe
the international relations but also the social unit likes family.

Meaning: What is Power?

The notion of power has multiple meanings and is contested concept. No settled or agreed definition
can ever be developed. It appears with diverse interpretations like the ability to achieve a desired
outcome, and an exercise of control by one over another.

Power is a psycho-political phenomenon-being the capacity of the person/group/institution to

affect/change/modify the behaviour of other person/group/institution. In this sense it is the capacity
to influence the behaviour of others. Further this influence is not voluntary and not readily accepted
by those over whom it is applied. Hence, power is the capacity of one to impose its will over others
irrespective of the will of others. When one succeeds in making other person do, which otherwise he
would not do or restricting other persons from doing things which otherwise that person want to do,
then it is said that the will of first person is imposed on the other and hence power is applied.

What make power different from other concepts like Force, Influence, and Authority?

Force is the instrument of power. Influence is the outcome of the power and authority is the
legitimized power. But force, influence and authority in itself are not power. Force is more physical
and power is psychological. Relation between power and force is delicate one and the difference is
often blurred. Perceived threat of force can result in change in the behavior of a person. But if such
fear is not present then it is said that power extinguishes and what remain is only brute force which
can defeat the person physically but its mind will be nondefeated. Power is visible through influence.
It can be seen in change in the behavior of the person on whom power is exercised. Thus, influence
is the yardstick of power.

Regarding relationship between authority and power it is sufficient to say that when power is
accepted by the people over whom it is applied it transforms into authority. Absence of power makes
authority a puppet and presence of power makes a common uncommon.

What are the types of power?

As we have seen earlier power is the capacity of the person to impose its will on others. Problem of
identifying the location of power lies in judgment of the capacity of such person. Such capacity
depends upon two things. Firstly, presence of potential elements such as money, military, social
status, numerical strength, territory, natural resources, quality of human resource etc., provide
necessary inputs which form the base of power. Secondly, the capability of the actor to use such
resources, that is, leadership, decision making, negotiation, propaganda and diplomacy. Thus crucial
thing to locate power is to quantify the potential resources and to qualify the capability to use these
resources effectively to its optimum utilization. Both of these categories help us to describe the types
of power.

Sources of Power

In 1959, French and Raven first identified five bases of power leaders: Reward; Coercive;
Legitimate; Referent and expert power and six years later, Raven added extra sources of
leadership power called informational power.

1. Reward/Exchange power

 This type of influence is created when the leader is able to offer a reward to his followers
for completing tasks/behaving in a certain manner.

 This results from one person's ability to compensate another for compliance.

 Rewards in the workplace can take a variety of forms from chocolates, gift vouchers and
holidays to promotions, commission and pay rises.

2. Coercive/Punishment Power

 This is the opposite of reward power because this power is based on the leader having
control over what happens if followers do not act as required.

 This comes from the belief that a person can punish others for noncompliance.

 If followers do not undertake the action required, the leader will impose a penalty.

 Penalties take a variety of forms including withdrawal of privileges, job losses, verbal
abuse, and delayed or loss of promotion.

3. Legitimate or positional Power/power emanated from legal authority

  This is the power that a leader has when the followers believe that the leader has “a right”
to instruct them and that they have an obligation to follow instructions.

 Sometimes legitimacy power is created by the leader’s job title, combined with the
follower’s belief that the job title gives the leader the right to give them orders.

4. Personal power sources

4.1. Referent Power

 This is created when the followers believe that the leader possess qualities that they admire
and would like to possess. Referent power is dependent on how the follower views the
personality of their leader

 This is the result of a person's perceived attractiveness, worthiness and right to others'
respect.

4.2. Expert Power (Knowledge and skills)

 As the title suggests, a leader has expert power when the followers believe that the leader
has “expert” knowledge or skills that are relevant to the job or tasks they have to complete.

6. Informational Power

 Having control over information that others need or want puts a leader in a powerful
position.

 Leader can use this power to help others or as a weapon or bargaining tool to against
them.

 The Essence of Authority

Meaning:

The word authority is derived from the Latin words; “auctor” and “auctoritas”. An auctor is an
originator of promoter of some order, pronouncement or whatever. When an action has been
authorized there is some person or set of persons from whom the authority to do it derives.
Authority regulates behaviour mainly by speech and words, not force. The term essentially indicates
the people who are considered to have the right to make announcements or announce decisions.
Authority implies that someone with the capacity to reasoned elaboration has the right to issue
regulations and make final pronouncements, and someone has the right to receive obedience.

Authority also the power to command obedience. It is the power to make decision which guides
action of others. Authority is legitimate exercise of power.

Types of Authority:

Authority can be classified into many ways depends upon its sources and location.

Traditional, Charismatic, and Legal-Rational Authority

Max Weber describes three types of political authority as per their sources: traditional,
charismatic and legal-rational. When the power to issue commands emerges from the source of
customs and traditions such authority he named traditional authority. The right to rule which is based
on the leadership qualities of the ruler is called as charismatic authority. When such rule is
legitimized by the legal-constitutional framework Weber called it legal rational authority.

 Legitimacy: Meaning

Legitimacy in simple sense is derivative of legitimate which means allowed by the law or rules or
something which is able to be defended with reasoning. In political sense it is the property that a
regime’s procedures for making and enforcing laws are acceptable to its subjects. Legitimacy is an
important ingredient of authority along with power. Legitimacy of a rule or decision implies that the
members of society treat that rule or decision as beneficial to society as well as to themselves. So
they willingly tend to abide by it. Use of force or coercion or sanctions may be resorted to only when
legitimacy fails to work. Legitimacy is based on respect and willing compliance.

Types of Legitimacy

1) Ideological legitimacy is based on the moral convictions about the validity of the regime and
incumbents of authority. When the source of legitimacy is the ideology prevailing in the
society, it is called ideological legitimacy.
2) Structural legitimacy is based on an independent belief in the validity of the structure and
norms and incumbents of the authority.
3) Personal legitimacy is based on the belief in the validity of the incumbents of authority roles
to the authority roles themselves. The belief in the validity of authorities is based on their
personal qualities.

2.3. Political Institutions/Actors

Building up of democracy is not an overnight program. It needs not only time but the
involvement of different actors to build democracy and democratic culture. Some these will be
seen below.

2.3.1. Political Parties as Political Institutions

Political party is defined as ‘an organized group of people who have similar political aims and
opinions that seek to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office’.
Similarly, political parties are groups or organizations seeking to place candidates in office under
a specific label. Parties are among the most important organizations in modern politics. In the
contemporary world, they are nearly ubiquitous: only a small percentage of states do without
them’.

Political party is a group of people that is organized for the purpose of winning government
power, by electoral or other means. Political parties may seek political power through elections
or revolutions. Thus a political party aims to capture state power and control the public
policymaking process within the confines of the constitutional and legal framework of the given
country.

A. Distinguish Characteristics of Political Parties

Four characteristics that distinguish parties from other groups (including interest groups and
social movements) include the following:

1. Parties aim to exercise government power by winning political office (small parties
may nevertheless use elections more to gain a platform than to win power).
2. Parties are organized bodies with formal card-carrying membership. This distinguishes
them from broader and more diffuse social movements.
 3. Parties typically adopt a broad issue focus, addressing each of the major areas of
government policy (small parties, however, may have a single issue focus, thus
resembling interest groups); and
4. To varying degrees, parties are united by shared political preferences and general
ideological identity.

B. Functions of Political Parties

Although the defining features of political parties are principally the capturing of government
power and control of public policy-making, their impact on the political system is broader and
more complex. Thus, various functions of political parties can be identified. More specifically,
six main functions of political parties can be identified. These are:

1. Representation: refers to the capacity of political parties to respond to and articulate the
views of both members and the voters. During elections, parties articulate and express the
views of their members through their election manifestos which influence their campaign
process. In government, political parties play the representation function by directing
public policy-making in line with the interests of the electorate. In opposition, parties aim
to act as watchdogs over the government policy-making and implementation process,
ensuring that the interests of the electorate are fulfilled.
2. Elite formation and recruitment: parties are responsible for providing states with their
political leaders. Heads of state and government are often leaders of political parties.
Cabinet ministers, assistant ministers, and members of parliament are usually senior
members of political parties. This trend emphasizes political leadership function of
political parties. Democracy requires democrats. If political parties produce democratic
leaders, a country stands a better chance of building its democratic governance. But if
political parties produce autocratic leaders, a country’s democratic governance is in peril.
3. Goal formulation: political parties are channels through which societies set collective
goals and ensure that such goals are carried out. Political parties play this role by setting
their goals, which are translated into national goals once they capture government power.
These goals, which were originally party-based, gain national character and attract more
popular support. Thus, political parties are a major source of policy initiation. This means
 that political parties need to strive to formulate coherent sets of policy options that
provide electorates with reasonable choice among realistic and achievable goals.
4. Interest articulation and aggregation: In developing collective goals, political parties
help to articulate and aggregate the various societal interests. Political parties make an
effort to ensure that their policies resonate with views, opinions, interests, demands and
fears of various social groups including business, labour, religious groups, racial groups,
ethnic groups, the gender divide, class divide, people with disabilities, the youth, etc. The
fact that political parties articulate the interests of varying societal groups compels them
to aggregate these interests by drawing them together into a coherent political agenda that
has a policy logic, in the process harmonizing competing interests (e.g. business vs
labour; peasants vs landlords; whites vs blacks; men vs women; abled vs disabled;
Christian vs Muslim, etc).
5. Socialization and mobilization: parties are critical agents for political education,
socialization and mobilization. The issues that political parties choose to focus upon
determine the national agenda. The attitude and values that political parties embrace and
articulate become part of the larger political culture of a nation.
6. Organization of government: Governance of modern societies requires organized
political society in the form of political parties. Without parties, societies would be
ungovernable. Without political parties, democratic governance is impossible. Without
political parties society is susceptible to free rein by populists, anarchists or fascists.
Political parties facilitate formation of stable and legitimate governments with a degree of
policy coherence. In theory, if a government is formed by one single party, prospects for
stability and policy coherence are greater. Conversely, if government is formed through
coalition of political parties, prospects for stability and policy coherence are weaker. But
practice suggests that one-party regimes can rupture and often do not necessarily lead to
policy coherence. That is why factionalism even in one-party governments does occur.
Political parties are supposed to facilitate cooperation between the two major organs of
the state, namely, the executive and the legislature, irrespective of whether a country
operates a parliamentary or presidential political system. Parties further provide a vital
source of opposition and criticism, both inside and outside of government.

C. Party Systems
Political parties are important to democracy in terms of the functions that they perform, as
outlined above. Besides their key functions, the significance of political parties to a democracy is
also assessed in terms of their interrelationships between and amongst themselves. The
interrelationship between and among parties plays a critical role in structuring the way political
systems work. It is these complex interrelationships between and among political parties that
constitute a party system. Party systems are networks–interparty relationships which determine
the way parties operate within and outside parliament. Taking in to account the number of
dominant or existing political parties within state, party systems is classified in to four major
categories.

1. One-party system

In one-party system, only one party exists and enjoys a monopoly of power. Other parties are
excluded from contestation for power either by political (de facto) or constitutional (de jure)
means. In situations of de facto one-party system, the ruling party dominates the political
landscape and exercises hegemony over all organs of the state without necessarily banning other
political parties through constitutional or legal provision. In situations of de jure one-party
system, the ruling party dominates the political landscape and exercises hegemony over the
organs of the state through deliberate constitutional or legal provision banning the existence of
other political parties. Example is the Workers Party of Ethiopia (WPE) under Derg regime, the
Chinese Communist Party, etc.
In one-party systems, political pluralism does not exist. The ruling party becomes a permanent
government. The party is fused into the state and the party is enmeshed into the state, hence the
term ‘one-party state’. Short of a military coup, the monopolistic party can only be removed
through a revolution. Checks and balances among the key organs of state (executive, judiciary
and legislature) and accountability are compromised. There is no parliamentary opposition.
2. Two-party system (duopoly)

In two-party system, two political parties dominate the political system as ‘major’ parties and
both have roughly equal prospect of winning state power. Conventionally, two-party system can
be identified by the following three criteria:

1. Sometimes a number of ‘minor’ parties may exist, but only two parties enjoy sufficient
electoral and legislative strength to have a realistic prospect of winning state power;
 2. The larger party is able to rule alone; the other provides the opposition;
3. Power alternates between these parties; both are ‘electable’, the opposition serving as a
‘government in the wings’.
4. The UK and the USA are classical cases of a two-party system wherein two parties
(Labour and Conservatives and Democrats and Republicans respectively) dominate the
political systems and from time to time alternate positions as government and opposition.
Other two-party systems exist in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Two-party systems
are associated with strong, accountable and responsive government.
3. Dominant-party system

Although they may exhibit similar characteristics, one-party systems and dominant party systems
should not be considered as synonymous. A dominant-party system prevails where only one
party exercises hegemony as the ruling party over a long period of time under conditions of
fragmented, disjointed and enfeebled opposition parties. Unlike the one-party system, dominant-
party system is competitive in that a number of parties compete for power in regular elections
even if the electoral contest is dominated by a single ‘major’ party. Such a party enjoys a
prolonged control of state power; enjoys a monopoly of policy-making; and faces a weak
opposition with slim prospects for capturing state power in the foreseeable future. Japan is often
cited as a classic case of a dominant-party system. Until it was dislodged from power in 1993,
the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in Japan had been in power for 38 years. The LDP still
enjoys political hegemony in Japan, although it increasingly has to rely on other parties to form a
government.

The Congress Party of India enjoyed an uninterrupted 30-year monopoly of power after
independence in 1947. In the SADC region, dominant-party systems are found in Botswana (the
Botswana Democratic Party, BDP – 41 years); South Africa (the African National Congress,
ANC – 14 years), Namibia (the South West African People’s Party, Swapo Party – 19 years),
Mozambique (the Frente de Libertação de Moçambique, Frelimo – 30 years), Angola (the
Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola, MPLA–30 years). The dominant-party system is
criticized on a number of grounds, including the following:

A dominant-party system may erode the constitutional distinction between state and party in
power;
 1. A dominant-party system may undermine the checks and balances and the effectiveness
of parliament as a watchdog over the executive organ of the state;
2. Prolonged control of state power could engender complacency, arrogance and corruption
in the dominant ruling party (with scandals involving allegations of corruption);
3. A dominant-party system is characterized by a weak and ineffective opposition whose
criticism and protests are often ignored by the dominant party;
4. The exercise of a ‘semi-permanent’ party of government in the form of dominant party
may corrode democratic spirit by encouraging the electorate to fear change and to stick
with the ‘natural’ party of government.

4. Multiparty system

Multiparty system is marked by competition among more than two political parties. Under this
system many parties exist with equal chances to become governing parties, either individually or
through coalitions. Thus, in this situation, prospects for a one party state or a dominant party
emerging are bleak. The major defining features of a multiparty system are party coalitions
within and outside parliament and coalition governments. For instance, in Germany’s multiparty
system, the two major parties, namely, the Social Democratic Party and the Christian Democratic
Union have ruled the country through political coalitions which also involve smaller parties.

The main strength of multiparty systems is that they create internal checks and balances within
government and exhibit a bias in favour of debate, conciliation and compromise. The main
criticism of the multiparty system relates to the pitfalls of formation, maintenance and sustenance
of coalitions both inside and outside government. Coalition governments may be fractured and
unstable (Italy with post-1945 governments having lasted on average only ten months). But the
record of political party coalitions in Germany and Sweden has not been marked by fracture and
instability.

2.3.2. Interest/Pressure groups

Pressure groups are indispensable for the prevalence and sustaining of democracy and further
democratization process. Pressure group is a collection of individuals who, on the basis of one or
more shared attitudes, make certain claims up on other groups in the society. In other words,
pressure group is an organized association that aim to influence the policies or/and actions of
government. The strength of pressure groups varies from on account of various factors such as
the number of the members, intensity and forms of organization.

In democracies we find several interest groups who are attempting to promote and influence the
policies of government. In fact interest groups are regarded as essential transmission belts
between people and government. They play an important role in helping people interact with
government, which is often remote and difficult for the individual to influence. Interest groups,
bridge the gap between the citizen and government. Through interest groups, citizens
communicate their wants on policy goals to government leaders.

Kinds of pressure groups

There are different kinds of pressure groups. Among others, the following are the major kinds of
pressure groups.

i) Institutional Groups: Institutional groups are setup primarily for purposes other than
political activity and would certainly exist even if they did not deal with politics; they
become politically active only to defend their own interests in the state’s policy decisions.
This kind of pressure group includes; University that is set up to educate students and
conduct research may hire lobbyists to secure financial support from the government, and so
on.

ii) Associational Groups: Associational groups regard political activity as one of their primary
purpose. Associational pressure groups may have some other primary purposes; organization
of business men, labour union, workers, farmers, & professionals, etc.

iii) Non- Associational Groups: Non–associational groups include informal Organizations

such as based on factors like kinship, religion, tribal loyalists, social traditions etc.

In the end, it is important to note that just like political parties; the presence of pressure groups
play their roles in building and promoting democracy and contributes their role in the furtherance
of democratization process.

2.3.3. Public opinion

  Public opinion is made up with citizens or specific groups that reflect on their
community and express their criticisms, their proposals or their agreement to
influence the construction of political will.

 It is the aggregation of many citizens’ views and interests regarding political issus,
leaders, institutions and events.

 Public opinion exists on a variety of political topics, including the following;

 Evaluation of those in government and other institutions

 Assessment of public policies
 Assessment of current circumstances
 Political orientations including partisanship and ideology
 Public opinion is then a tool to control the politicians that lead the country.
2.3.4. Mass media as Political Actors

 The mass media refers the institution and to the methods of communication, which can
reach large number of people at the same time. It includes newspapers, television, radio,
books, posters, magazines, and cinema etc.

 Media plays a role in the political training of citizens and democratic culture by
informing them of the scope of public policies, the management and conduct of affairs
by those responsible at both the State and grass-roots level, by providing and offering
the members of the community the means of communicating with each other.

 But if the media is to perform those functions, it must be free and independent; it must
have sufficient material and human resources to deal with all the important problems of
society.

 The importance of the mass media in a country is not dependent on the number of
newspapers or private radio and television stations but on the quality of the information
provided to the public.

2.4. Elections and Voting Systems

2.4.1. Definitions of political Elections and Its Functions
Election is often thought of us the heart of politics and political process. Election is seen as
nothing less than democracy in practice. It is a means through the people can control their
government, ultimately by ‘kicking the rascals out’.

Election means recruitment of the representatives by choice of the voters. Election is a

competition for office based on formal expression of preferences by citizens. It also defined as
the manner of choice agreed up on by a group of people which enables them to select one
party/coalitions of parties of parties or one or few people out of many to occupy political
office.

Functions of Political Elections

There are two contrasting views of the function of competitive elections. The conventional view
is that elections are the mechanisms through which politicians can be called to account and
forced to policies that are somehow reflect the public opinion. This emphasizes the bottom-up
functions of elections: political recruitment, representation, making government, influencing
policy and so on. On the other hand, a radical view of elections portrays them as a means
through which government and political elites can exercise control over their populations,
making them more quiescent, malleable, and, ultimately, governable. This view emphasizes top-
down functions: building legitimacy, shaping public opinion and strengthening elites. Like all
kinds of political communication, elections are ‘two-way street’ that provide the government and
people, the elite and masses with the opportunity one another.

Electoral Process and Principles

Electoral process is a formal procedure by which voters decide whom to choose. The act to that
individuals perform when choose or elect among alternatives (persons or parties) in a political
election is known as voting. Political election is a necessary condition for democracy and or any
democratic governance. However, it is worth mentioning that elections alone could not be
always guarantee democratic governance. For the outcomes of electoral process to be
democratic, certain principles and procedures have to be observed. Hence, the next part looks at
these principles and procedures.

The Principles of Democratic Electoral Process

For any electoral process to be democratic, it must be governed by certain key principles. The
following principles are the most importance ones for an electoral process to be democratic.

1. The Principle of all-inclusiveness: As to this principle, election in a given country should be

held on the basis of universal suffrage which all adult citizens will have the right to vote. By the
virtue of the F. D.R.E constitution, in its article 38 (1) (b), the minimum age limit for voting is
set at 18 years of age.

2. The Principle of Periodic Election: A periodic election refers to as regular elections

undertook in the constitutionally/legally prescribed time limits. This is a fertile and enabling
principle that enables people of a given country to change government they are pleased with.
Moreover, it also avoids the possibility for an indefinite period of time. The F.D.R.E constitution
in its article 54 (1), sets the term of election at 5 years.

3. The Principle of Free and Fair Election: The principle of a free and fair election is meant
that neither law nor violence, nor yet intimidation should prohibit candidates or voters from
presenting their views and cast their votes. And, in order for election to be fair and free from any
influence, the casting of votes should be done in a secret ballot.

4. The Principle of Secret Ballot: secret ballot implies an election where the voters vote in
secret.
The principles democratic electoral process stated above are neatly summarized in Article 21(3)
of UDHRs as follows:

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be expressed in
periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal an equal suffrage and shall be held
by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

2.4.2. Electoral/Voting System

An electoral system or voting system is a set of rules that determine how elections and
referendums are conducted and how their results are determined.

Electoral systems translate the votes cast in a general election into seats won by parties and
candidates. Electoral system design also affects other areas of electoral laws: the choice of
electoral system has an influence on the way in which district boundaries are drawn, how voters
are registered, the design of ballot papers, how votes are counted and numerous other aspects of
electoral process.

There are countless electoral system variations, as noted in the previous section, but essentially
they can be divided into 3 main systems and 9 sub-systems. The most common way to look at
electoral systems is to group them according to how closely they translate national votes won
into legislative seats won, that is, how proportional they are. To do this, one needs to look at both
the votes-to -seats relationship and the level of wasted votes.

A) PLURALITY/MAJORITY SYSTEMS
The principle of plurality/majority systems is simple. After votes have been cast and totalled,
those candidates or parties with the most votes are declared the winners (there may also be
additional conditions based on the states’ specific electoral laws). Five varieties of
plurality/majority systems can be identified: First Past The Post (FPTP), Block Vote (BV), Party
Block Vote (PBV), Alternative Vote (AV), and the Two-Round System (TRS).
1. First-Past-The Post (FPTP)
This is the simplest form of plurality/majority system, using single-member districts and
candidate-centered voting. The voter is presented with the names of the nominated candidates
and votes by choosing one, and only one, of them. The winning candidate is simply the person
who wins most votes. The winning candidate is the one who gains more votes than any other
candidate, even if this is not an absolute majority of valid votes. The system uses single-
member districts and the voters vote for candidates rather than political parties.

2. The Block Vote (BV)

Block Vote is a plurality/majority system used in multi-member districts. Electors have as
many votes as there are candidates to be elected. The candidates with the highest vote totals
win the seats. Usually voters vote for candidates rather than parties and in most systems may
use as many, or as few, of their votes as they wish.

3. Party Block Vote (PBV)

Party Block Vote: A plurality/majority system using multi-member districts in which voters
cast a single party-centred vote for a party of choice, and do not choose between candidates.
The party with most votes will win every seat in the electoral district.

Under Party Block Vote, unlike FPTP and like Block Vote system, there are multi-member
districts. Voters have a single vote, and choose between party lists of candidates rather than
The rationale underpinning PR between individuals. The party which wins most votes
takes all the seats in the district, and its entire list of candidates is duly elected. As in FPTP, there
is no requirement for the winner to have an absolute majority of the votes.
4. The Alternative Vote (AV)
The Alternative Vote is a preferential plurality/majority system used in single-member
districts. Voters use numbers to mark their preferences on the ballot paper. A candidate who
receives an absolute majority (50 per cent plus 1) of valid first-preference votes is declared
elected. If no candidate achieves an absolute majority of first preferences, the least successful
candidates are eliminated and their votes reallocated according to their second preferences
until one candidate has an absolute majority. Voters vote for candidates rather than political
parties.

Elections under Alternative Vote are usually held in single-member districts, like FPTP
elections. However, AV gives voters considerably more options than FPTP when marking their
ballot paper. Rather than simply indicating their favoured candidate, under AV electors rank the
candidates in the order of their choice, by marking a ‘1’ for their favourite, ‘2’ for their second
choice, ‘3’ for their third choice and so on. The system thus enables voters to express their
preferences between candidates rather than simply their first choice. For this reason, it is often
known as ‘preferential voting’ in the countries which use it
5. The Two-Round System (TRS)
The Two-Round System is a plurality/majority system in which a second election is held if no
candidate or party achieves a given level of votes, most commonly an absolute majority (50
per cent plus one), in the first election round. A Two-Round System may take a
majority/plurality form, and more than two candidates contest the second round and the one
who wins the highest number of votes in the second round is elected, regardless of whether
they have won an absolute majority or a majority run-off form—only the top two candidates in
the first round contest the second round.

The central feature of the Two-Round System is as the name suggests: it is not one election but
takes place in two rounds, often a week or a fortnight apart. The first round is conducted in the
same way as a single-round plurality/majority election. In the most common form of TRS, this is
conducted using FPTP. It is, however, also possible to conduct TRS in multi-member districts
using Block Vote (as in Kiribati) or Party Block Vote (as in Mali). A candidate or party that
receives a specified proportion of the vote is elected outright, with no need for a second ballot.
This proportion is normally an absolute majority of valid votes cast, although several countries
use different figure when using TRS to elect a president. If no candidate or party receives an
absolute majority, then a second round of voting is held and the winner of this round is declared
elected.
B) Proportional Representation (Pr) Systems

The rationale underpinning PR systems is the conscious translation of a party’s share of the
votes into a corresponding proportion of seats in the legislature. There are two major types of
PR system—List Prorportional Representation (PR) and Single Transferable Vote (STV).
PR requires the use of electoral districts with more than one member: it is not possible to divide
a single seat elected on a single occasion proportionally. In some countries, such as Israel and the
Netherlands, the entire country forms one multi-member district. In other countries, for example,
Argentina or Portugal, electoral districts are based on provinces, while Indonesia lays down the
range of permissible sizes for electoral districts and gives the task of defining them to its EMB.

PR systems are a common choice in many new democracies, and 23 established democracies
use some variant of PR. PR systems are dominant in Latin America, Africa and Europe.
Proportional Representation requires the use of multi-member districts. There are many
important issues which can have a major impact on how a PR system works in practice. The
greater the number of representatives to be elected from a district, the more proportional the
electoral system will be. It also differs in the range of choice given to the voter—whether they
can choose between political parties, individual candidates, or both.

1. List Proportional Representation (List PR)

Under a List Proportional Representation system each party presents a list of candidates for a
multi-member electoral district , however, the voters vote for a party , and parties receive
seats in proportion to their overall share of the vote . In some (closed list) systems the winning
candidates are taken from the lists in order of their position on the lists. If the lists are ‘open’
or ‘free’ list system the voters can influence the order of the candidates by marking individual
preferences.

There are several other important issues that need to be considered in defining precisely how a
List PR system will work. A formal threshold may be required for representation in the
legislature: a high threshold (for example 10 per cent, as used by Turkey) is likely to exclude
smaller parties, while a low threshold (for example 1.5 per cent, as used by Israel) may
promote their representation. In South Africa, there is no formal threshold, and in 2004 the
African Christian Democratic Party won six seats out of 400 with only 1.6 per cent of the
national vote. List PR systems also differ depending on whether and how the voter can choose
between candidates as well as parties, that is, whether lists are closed, open or free (panache
age). This choice has implications for the complexity of the ballot paper.
2. The Single Transferable Vote (STV)

The Single Transferable Vote is a preferential system in which the voter ranks the candidates
in a multi-member district and the candidates that surpass a specified quota of first-preference
votes are immediately elected . In successive counts, votes are redistributed from least
successful candidates, who are eliminated, and votes surplus to the quota are redistributed from
successful candidates, until sufficient candidates are declared elected. Voters normally vote for
candidates rather than political parties , although a party-list option is possible.

STV has long been advocated by political scientists as one of the most attractive electoral
systems, but its use for legislative elections has been limited to a few cases—the Republic of
Ireland since 1921, Malta since 1947, and once in Estonia in 1990. It is also used for elections to
the Australian Federal Senate and in several Australian states, and for European and local
elections in Northern Ireland. It has been adopted for local elections in Scotland and in some
authorities in New Zealand. It was also chosen as the recommendation of the British Columbia
Citizens’ Assembly (see the case study on British Columbia).

The core principles of the system were independently invented in the 19th century by Thomas
Hare in Britain and Carl Andræ in Denmark. STV uses multi-member districts and voters
rank candidates in order of preference on the ballot paper in the same manner as under the
Alternative Vote system. In most cases this preference marking is optional, and voters are not
required to rank-order all candidates; if they wish they can mark only one. After the total
number of first-preferences votes are tallied, the count then begins by establishing the quota of
votes required for the election of a single candidate. The quota used is normally the Droop quota,
calculated by the simple formula:

The result is determined through a series of counts. At the first count, the total number of first-
preference votes for each candidate is ascertained. Any candidate who has a number of first
preferences greater than or equal to the quota is immediately elected.

After any count, if no candidate has a surplus of votes over the quota, the candidate with the
lowest total of votes is eliminated. His or her votes are then redistributed in the next count to the
candidates left in the race according to the second and then lower preferences shown. The
process of successive counts, after each of which surplus votes are redistributed or a candidate is
eliminated, continues until either all the seats for the electoral district are filled by candidates
who have received the quota, or the number of candidates left in the count is only one more than
the number of seats to be filled, in which case all remaining candidates bar one are elected
without receiving a full quota.

C) MIXED SYSTEMS
Mixed electoral systems attempt to combine the positive attributes of both plurality/majority (or
‘other’) and PR electoral systems. In a mixed system there are two electoral systems using
different formulae running alongside each other. The system is a single-member district system,
and the other a List PR system. There are two forms of mixed system. When the results of the
two types of election are linked, with seat allocations at the PR level being dependent on what
happens in the plurality/majority (or other) district seats and compensating for any
disproportionality that arises there, the system is called a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)
system. Where the two sets of elections are detached and distinct and are not dependent on each
other for seat allocations, the system is called a Parallel system. While an MMP system generally
results in proportional outcomes, a Parallel system is likely to give results of which the
proportionality falls somewhere between that of a plurality/majority and that of a PR system.

1. Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)

Mixed Member Proportional is a mixed system in which the choices expressed by the voters
are used to elect representatives through two different systems-one List PR system and (usually)
one plurality/majority system-where the List PR system compensates for the disproportionality
in the results from the plurality/majority system.

Under MMP systems, the PR seats are awarded to compensate for any disproportionality
produced by the district seat results. For example, if one party wins 10 per cent of the vote
nationally but no district seats, then it will be awarded enough seats from the PR lists to bring its
representation up to 10 per cent of the seats in the legislature. Voters may get two separate
choices, as in Germany and New Zealand. Alternatively, voters may make only one choice, with
the party totals being derived from the totals for the individual district candidates.
2. Parallel Systems

A Parallel System is a mixed system in which the choices expressed by the voters are used to
elect representatives through two different systems-one List PR system and (usually) one
plurality/majority system-but where no account is taken of the seats allocated under the first
system in calculating the results in the second system.

Parallel systems also use both PR and plurality/majority components, but unlike MMP systems
the PR component of the system does not compensate for any disproportionality within the
plurality/majority districts. (It is also possible for the non-PR component of a Parallel system to
come from the family of ‘other’ systems, as in Taiwan.) In a Parallel system, as in MMP, each
voter may receive either one ballot paper which is used to cast a vote both for a candidate and for
his or her party, as is done in South Korea (the Republic of Korea), or two separate ballot papers,
one for the plurality/majority seat and one for the PR seats, as is done for example in Japan,
Lithuania and Thailand.
Chapter Three: Comparative Government and Politics
Introduction
Since ancient times, scholars, thinkers and political scientists have been studying various models
of governance and politics. The study so far may not have been conclusive but it draws upon a
general systemization of socio-economic and political factors at play. The focus has been the
government and political process, institution and their behaviour, and political thoughts.
Comparative politics covers many of the same subject but from the perspective of parallel
political behaviour in different countries and regions.
Comparative politics is a field of political science characterized by an empirical approach based on
the comparative method. The study of comparative politics depends on conscious comparisons in the
field of political experience, behaviour and processes. The study of governments is a significant part
of the study of politics. The comparative study of government and politics is an essential requirement
for the field of political science. The nature of comparative politics seeks to analyze and compare
different political systems that work under different societies.

One of the most important challenges in political science was to develop a broadly applicable theory
of the political system. This theory was developed by David Easton. The outputs of a political system
are authoritative decisions and actions of the political authorities for the distribution and division of
values.

The Concepts of Comparative Politics

The term ’comparative politics’ is of recent origin and came into vogue in the fifties of the
present century and is indicative of the expanding horizon of political science. The political
scientists made a bid to study the political reality through a new techniques and approaches. The
old concepts were also seen in new light. One of the main reasons which encouraged the
development of new approach for the study of politics was dissatisfaction with the traditional
descriptive approach to the subject. The scholars laid greater emphasis on informal political
process rather than political institutions and state. They borrowed a number of ideas and
concepts from other social sciences and provided the political studies a new empirical
orientation.
 According to M. G. Smith, ‘Comparative politics is the study of the forms of political
organizations, their properties, correlations, variations and modes of change.’
 According to Roy C. Macridis and Robert Ward, ‘Government is not the sole concern of students
of comparative politics.’ Comparative politics, no doubt, has to be concerned with the
government structure but at the same time it has to take note of the following:
 Society, historical heritage and geographic and resource endowed
 Its social and economic organizations
 Its ideologies and value systems
 Its political style
 Its parties, interests, and leadership structure
 According to Freeman “Comparative politics is comparative analysis of the various forms
of government and diverse political institutions.” Braibante says comparative politics is
“identification and interpretation of factors in the whole social order which appears to
affect whatever political functions and their institutions which have been identified and
listed for comparison.”
 According to M. Curtis, ‘Comparative politics is concerned with significant regularities,
similarities and differences in the working of political institutions and political behaviour.’
 According to E. A. Freeman, ‘Comparative politics is comparative analysis of the various
forms of government and diverse political institutions.’

All these definitions provide a basis for the study of comparative governments in its
contemporary term. It involves a comparative study of the institutional and mechanistic
arrangements along with the empirical and scientific analysis of non-institutionalized and
non-political determinants of political behavior.

Development of Comparative Politics

The study of comparative politics became highly significant in the 1950’s when a good number
of leading American political scientists sought to ‘transform the field of politics’ by taking the
study of this subject ‘from foreign to comparative political phenomenon’ and ‘from the study of
the governments to the study of the political systems’. In broad terms, the transformation which
“has taken place has been from a field which would most appropriately be labelled ‘foreign
governments’ to one which might most adequately be called comparative political systems.”
However, the historical development of this subject may be roughly put into three phases —
unsophisticated, sophisticated, and increasingly sophisticated.
The contributions made to the study of politics by great figures like Aristotle, Machiavelli, de
Tocqueville, Bryce, Ostrogorski and Weber belong to the first phase who simply utilised the
comparative method for the primary purpose of understanding better the working of the political
organizations. These writers employed, what was called, the comparative method that “aimed
through the study of existing politics or those which had existed in the past to assemble a definite
body of material from which the investigator by selection, comparison, and elimination may
discover the ideal types and progressive forces of political history.” John Stuart Mill undertook
to show that the comparative method “may assume several forms, the ‘most perfect’ of which is
the process of difference by which two politics, identical in every particular except one, are
compared with a view to discovering the effect of the differing factor.” Lord James Bryce
preferred comparative method and designated it as scientific by adding: “That which entitles it to
be called scientific is that it reaches general conclusions by tracing similar results to similar
causes, eliminating those disturbing influences which, present in one country and absent in
another, make the results in the examined cases different in some points while similar in others.”
The contributions of some important recent writers like Samuel H. Beer, M. Hass, Bernard Ulam
and Roy C. Macridis may be included in the second phase who made use of the comparative
method with a good amount of self-consciousness and also with a deliberate mood to present a
more useful study of different political institutions. As a matter of fact, the writers belonging to
this category, unlike political thinkers and writers belonging to the first, applied the instruments
of institutional comparisons in a quite rigorous manner to present a better (in the sense of
realistic) study of the governments what they desired to address as ‘political systems’. This may
as these writers “were concerned with the various strategies of comparison: area studies,
configurative approach, institutional and functional comparisons, a problem-based orientation,
and with various methodological problems: conceptualization, the establishment of agreed
categories for comparison, validity as a problem, cross-cultural difficulties and the availability of
data.”
The contributions of David Easton, Gabriel A. Almond, James C. Coleman, Karl Deutsch, G.B.
Powell, Harold Lasswell, Robert A. Dahl, Edward Shils, Harry Eckstein, David Apter, Lucian
W. Pye, Sidney Verba, Myron Weiner and a host of others may be included in the final phase. It
may rightly be described as the mark of an increasingly sophisticated phase in the growth of
comparative politics. The writers belonging to this phase have made use of interrelated set of
concepts for the sake of presenting their contributions on the basis of comparative analyses,
though they have provided a specialized vocabulary in their own ways. As Roberts says: “If
Easton talks of inputs, outputs, demands, gatekeepers, supports and stresses, environment,
feedback, values, critical ranges and political authorities; Almond offers a set of input and output
functions; Deutsch borrows a cybernetic language which applies to political systems the concept
of feedback of various types—autonomy, memory, load, lag, lead and gain, receptors,
communication, selective screening of information and so on. Almond’s aim of ‘universality’
sums up the purpose for the choice of such languages — they are sufficiently general to be
applicable to any political unit, regardless of size, period, degree of development or other
factors.”

Distinction between Comparative Government and Comparative Politics

Although the two terms ‘comparative politics’ and ‘comparative government’ are used loosely
and interchangeably, there is a point of distinction between the two. While the latter covers a
comparative study of different political systems with special emphasis on their institutions and
functions, the former has a broader scope so as to cover all that comes within the purview of the
former and, in addition to that, all else that may be designated as the study of ‘non-state’ politics.
In other words, the scope of comparative politics is wider than that of comparative government
despite the fact that the search for making comparisons is central to the study of both. The
concern of a student of comparative politics does not end with the study of rule-making,
(legislature), rule-implementing (executive) and rule-adjudicating (judicial) departments of the
political systems or even with the study of some extra-constitutional agencies (like political
parties and pressure groups) having their immediate connection, visible or invisible, with the
principal spheres of state activity. In addition to all this, he goes ahead to deal, though in a
particular way, with even those subjects hitherto considered as falling within the range of
economics, sociology, psychology and anthropology. As Sidney Verba concisely suggests:
“Look beyond description to more theoretically relevant problems; look beyond the formal
institutions of government to political processes and political functions; and look beyond the
countries of Western Europe to the new nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America.”

The meaning and nature of comparative politics as distinguished from that of the comparative
government is well brought out by Curtis in these words: “Comparative politics is concerned
with significant regularities, similarities and differences in the working of political institutions
and in political behavior. Meaningful analysis requires explanatory hypotheses, the testing of
sentiments, categories and classification by the collection of empirical data, observation,
experimentation if at all possible; and the use of research techniques such as sampling, and
communications data to increase knowledge.” Curtis, however, makes it quite obvious that the
inquiry into similarities and differences is not a search for certainty or predictability, nor does it
start from the premise that what is not ‘scientific’ is not knowledge. Systems classification and
categories are always tentative: they cannot claim finality. Politics cannot be reduced to a series
of involuntary and automatic responses to stimuli. Sometime the most significant political
phenomena are those changes in the mood of the times that are impossible to quantify. It is
affirmed by Chlicote in these words: “Comparative government usually refers to the study of
institutions and functions of countries or nation-states in Europe with attention to the executives,
legislatures and judiciaries as well as such supplementary organizations as political parties and
pressure groups. Comparative politics, in contrast, studies a broader range of political activity
including the government and their institutions as well as other forms of organizations, not
directly related to national government for example, tribes, communities, associations and
unions.”

From the above, it infers that the term ‘comparative politics’ should be preferred to the term
‘comparative government’, as the scope of the former is wider and more comprehensive to
include all the essential characteristics that we have discussed above. One may, however, agree
with the observation of Blondel that the term ‘comparative government’ has two aspects—
horizontal and vertical—and this term may be identified with ‘comparative politics’ if both the
aspects are taken into account. Vertical comparison is a comparative study of the state vis-à-vis
other associations and groups that have their ‘political character’ and cast their impact upon the
functioning of a political system; horizontal comparison is a comparative study of the state visa
vis other national governments. Blondel may be justified to some extent in saying that
comparative government becomes comparative politics when both the vertical and horizontal
aspects of comparisons are taken into account that lead to this definition: “Comparative
government can thus be defined in a preliminary fashion as the study of patterns of national
governments in the contemporary world.”

Though one may, or may not, fully agree with the view of Blondel, it may, nevertheless, be
added that it is always safer to use the title ‘comparative politics’ in preference to ‘comparative
government’. Perhaps, it is for this reason that Edward Freeman makes an attempt to bring out a
distinction between the two in these words: “By comparative government I mean the
comparative study of political “institutions, of forms of government. And under the name of
comparative politics, I wish to point out and bring together many analogies which are to be seen
between the political institutions of times and countries most remote from one another. We are
concerned with the essential likeness of institutions and we must never allow incidental traits of
unlikeness to keep us from seeing essential likeness.” It may, however, be added with a word of
caution that comparative politics, though concerned with significant regularities, similarities and
differences in the sphere of political institutions and human behaviours, the work of comparison
should neither be done half-heartedly to ignore much that is really useful, nor should it be taken
to the extremes of over-simplification making the whole study vulgar and implausible. We
should be guided by the counsel of Roberts that any lesser conception of comparative politics
“tends to lack either clear identity or criteria of selection and exclusion.” We should also pay
heed to the warning of Eckstein and Apter that “too broad a conception of comparative politics
would widen it to encompass political science.”

Generally, the main differences between ‘comparative politics’ and ‘comparative government’
can be summarized follows:
1. Firstly, while comparative government is concerned with the study of formal political
institutions like legislature, executive, judiciary and bureaucracy alone in comparative politics
the other factors which influence the working of the political institutions are taken into account.
In other words ‘comparative politics’ makes a study of the formal as well as informal political
institutions. This point has been summed up by a scholar thus: “The scope of comparative
politics is wider than that of comparative government despite search for making comparisons
which is central to the study of both. The concern of a student of comparative politics does not
end with the study of rule making, rule implementation and rule adjudicating organs of various
political systems or even with that study of some extra constitutional agencies (like political and
pressure groups) having their immediate connection, visible or invisible with the departments of
state activity. In addition to all this, he goes ahead to deal with...even those subjects hitherto
considered as falling within the range of Economics, Sociology and Anthropology.”
1. Comparative government was chiefly confined to the study of the political institutions of
western democratic countries. On the other hand comparative politics concentrates on the study
of political institutions of all the countries of the world. It has laid special emphasis on the study
of political institutions of the states which have emerged in the twentieth century.
2. Second, comparative politics studies and compares different theories and political practices of
countries/ or nation-states while comparative government is concerned with the study, analysis
and comparison of different government systems around the world.
3. Thirdly, comparative government involves only descriptive study of the political institutions
and makes only formal study of the political institutions provided by the constitution. On the
other hand comparative politics concentrates on analytical study of the various political
institutions. Investigation and experimentation constitute prominent features of comparative
Politics.
4. Finally, comparative government concerns itself only with the political activities of the
political institutions, while comparative politics also takes into account the economic, cultural
and social factors. That means comparative politics is wider body whereas comparative
government is one of the sub-division.

Chapter Four: The Concepts of Society and State

 Community- it is different organizations/institutions or families in a neighborhood which
share common interest.

 Society- there have been debates on the exact meaning of society:

a) Tomistic view
  According to this view, society is nothing more than a collection of individual
units or atoms.

 Individuals pursue their self interests through the formation of groups, and
association, business ventures, trade unions, clubs and etc.

b) Organic theory of society- is based upon an organic analogy

 Instead of being constructed by rational individuals to satisfy their personal

interest, society may operate as an organic whole, exhibiting properties more
normally associated with living organism; a human being or plant.

 This suggests a holistic approach to society, emphasizing that society is

complex networks of relationship which ultimately exist to maintain the whole
i.e., the whole is more important than its individual parts.

Which view do you support? Which theory reflects Ethiopia society/

 In general, society is large number of communities that have social, cultural, and
economic interactions

 It is an organized group of people living together in a given territory.

 Understanding State

The state is, the most highly organized and powerful political structure of a society. It is a
political system of the society. If we take society as system, the state represents one of the sub-
systems of the society i.e, the political system.

The state is a political association or entity that establishes sovereign jurisdiction within a
defined territorial borders and exercise authority through a set of institutions overall the members
of society. Put it differently, the state is a political unit that has the highest (ultimate) sovereignty
and responsibility for the conduct of its own affairs internally as well as externally being within
the defined territorial borders over the members of a society through a set of institutions and
organizations.
Among the institutions and organizations that are included with in state are: Courts, police
departments, legitimate regulatory agencies, executive offices, and the military. Taken together,
these specialized institutions and organizations of the state have the monopoly over the
legitimate use of force within a given authority. Hence, the state is all the specialized institutions
and organizations in which power over a given geographic is concentrated. Therefore, a state is
distinctive feature of modern societies.

 The key elements of state

The state is essentially characterized by the following four attributes: population, defined
territory, government, sovereignty and Recognition. While the first two elements (population and
territory) are taken as its ‘physical’ elements, the next two (government and sovereignty) are
regarded as its ‘spiritual’ or ‘metaphysical’ elements. Now, Let see and examine these
elements.

1. Population: Since state is a human association, the first essential element that constitutes it is
the people who are residing (living) within a certain defined area. No minimum number is
required to constitute the population of a state. How much people constitute state? No exact
answer can be given to such a question. We have states with a population of about 1.3. Billion as
China and few thousand-population number like San Marino. In this direction, we may
appreciate the view of Aristotle that the population of a state should neither be so large that
administration may be a problem nor so small that the people may not lead a life of peace and
stability.

Another question that arises at this stage is whether the population of a state should be
homogenous or not. It is good that the population of a state is homogenous, because it makes the
task of national integration easy. But it is not necessary. Most of the states have a population
marked by diversity in respects of race, religion, language, culture etc. It signifies the situation of
‘Unity in diversity’. Hence, a state is a human institution created by people to serve some of
their particular needs.

2. Defined Territory: There can be no state without a territory of its own. Territory is second
most essential attribute of modern statehood, i.e. definite portions of the earth’s surface marked
off from the portions occupied by population of other states. However, the state should have
more or less generally recognized limits, even if some of its boundaries are undefined or
disputed.

3. Government: Government is the soul and brain of the state. It implements the will of the
community. It protects the people against conditions of insecurity. If state is regarded as the first
condition of a civilized life, it is due to the existence of a government that maintains law and
order and makes ‘good life’ possible. The government is the machinery that terminates the
condition of anarchy. Government is the administrative wing of the state.

4. Sovereignty: is power over the people of an area unrestrained (unfettered) by laws originating
outside the area or independence completely free of direct external control. It means the state is
the final and ultimate source of all laws with its territorial jurisdiction.

Modern states are the highest and supreme institutions both at domestic and international level.

As already pointed out, sovereignty is the attribute of a state. It is a creation of modern times. It
is that highest power of the state that distinguishes it from all other associations of human beings.
It has two aspects–internal and external.

i. Internal sovereignty: refers to a state’s government-not that of any other states–deciding

how it will manage its domestic affairs, problems, and formulate its own laws and rules.
In other words, it means that inside the state there can be no other authority that may
claim equality with it. The rules or government decisions and actions are supreme over
other institutions such as religious or family or any kind of human association. Citizens
obey the rules and dictates of the state.

External sovereignty: In the external sphere, it implies that the country should be free from
foreign control of any kind and its right to define its interests and decides what its objectives are
to be, the priorities among these objectives. There is no any power that can intervene in the
internal and external affairs of the state. It is, however, a different matter that a state willingly
accepts some intentional obligations in the form of membership of the League of Nations or of
the United Nations. The existence of sovereign authority appears in the form of law. It is for this
reason that the law of the state is binding on all and its violation is visited with suitable
punishment.
 5. Recognition: for a political unit to be accepted as a state with an “international
personality” of its own, it must be recognized as such by a significant portion of the
international community. It follows that a state, has five essential elements. As such, a
proper definition of this term should include its physical and spiritual elements. It is also
required that all the four elements should be studied in the order given above. Therefore,
the most appropriate definition of the state is that state is a community of persons more or
less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent or
nearly so of external control, and possessing an organized government to which the great
body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.

 Theories on the Origin of State

A. Th Divine theory of State: The theory of divine origin is one of the earliest theories
regarding the origin of the state. According to this theory, the state is the creation of God. The
king is deputy or representative of God, and must as such be obeyed and reserved by the people.
There is no one on earth above the ruler. His command is law, and all his actions are justified. To
disobey the ruler is to defy the divine will. It is not merely a crime: it is sinful. He claims that the
king derives his authority from God, and is not responsible to the people on earth. He is above
law, and is subject to God alone. He has authority over every person and enjoys the power of life
and death. Even if the king is wicked, the people have no right to rebel against him. To disobey
the king is to rebel against God himself. The salient features of the doctrine of the divine right of
kings may be summed up as follows: a) the king derives his authority from god and that
monarchy a divinely ordained; b) hereditary right is indefeasible (incapable of being voided); c)
kings are not answerable to their subjects; they are accountable to god alone; and d) resistance to
the authority of the king is sinful. Nowadays the theory of divine origin of states is being
discredited for the following three reasons: first the emergence of social contract theory which
laid emphasis on the popular will; secondly, the separation of church and state which diminished
the importance of religion in secular matters and third the rise of democracy which made people
conscious of their rights.

B. The Force Theory: The Force Theory holds that the state is outcome of naked force applied
by the strong over the weak ones, and their consequent subjugation. The primitive society was
marked by conflicts and wars between different classes and tribes. The successful clan or tribe
established its authority over the defeated ones. According to this theory, the state has come into
being through physical coercion or compulsion. War begets the state. According to Leacock,
“government is the outcome of human aggression that the beginnings of the state are to be sought
in the capture and enslavement of man by man, in the conquest and subjugation of feebler tribes,
and generally speaking, in the self–seeking domination acquired by superior physical force. The
progressive growth from tribe to kingdom and from kingdom to empire is but a continuation of
the same progress.”. There are six conditions for emergence of the state. The first state is marked
by continuous fights and endless combats. Killing and plunder prevail. The conquerors kill the
vanquished males and take away the women and children as booty. In the second state, the
peasants make unsuccessful attempts to throw off the Yoke of alien hunters and herdsmen.
Finding it hopeless, they cease resistance. The victors in turn give up killing the vanquished, and
enslave them. Thus begins the exploitation of man by man. In the third state, there is mutual
realization of the benefits of co–operation between the conquerors and the conquered, and it
eventually leads to peaceful integration and assimilation. In the Fourth stage, they learn to get
along together and to fight against common external foes. This develops a feeling of oneness
among them. In the fifth stage, the need to devise some machinery to settle internal disputes and
quarrels by arbitration is felt. It marks the beginning of the government. In the sixth and final
stage, military leaders become kings and their deputies become councilors. The king decides
cases, gives orders and punishes offenders. Law and order are fully established and the habit of
obedience is formed. The state has come in to being.

Once the state was established, it was still necessary to use force for its maintenance. The
continued existence of state demands the use of force for maintaining internal order and external
security. The force theory is mistaken in regarding force to be the sole controlling factor in the
creation of the state. All the states of the world have not come into being through the use of
force. Any attempt to glorify force and to use it, unsanctioned by the general will, will shake the
foundation of the state. Even great empires, as history tells us, do not last forever. Again the
theory is wrong in glorifying war.

C. Genetic Theory (Patriarchal and Matriarchal Theories): The generic theory holds that the
state is the product of natural expansion of the family. In the course of time, by a natural process
of expansion, one family gave rise to several. Several families or kinship groups united to form a
village. Through time one village expanded into several settlements, which in turn united to form
the state. As Aristotle observes, “The first form of association naturally instituted for the
satisfaction of the daily recurrent needs is the family. There are two versions of this theory that
is, the patriarchal theory and the matriarchal theory. The Patriarchal Theory: According to this
theory, the state is the natural expansion of the original family unit in which descent was traced
through males, and the eldest living male parent ruled absolutely. In this view, the eldest male
parent possessed despotic authority. He was not only absolute owner of property, including even
what his children had acquired but he could chastise and even kill, could sell or transfer by
adoption, could marry or divorce any of his children at will.” However, the authority of the head
of the first family was acknowledged by all his descendants. On his death, authority passed to the
eldest male descendant. The Matriarchal Theory: This argues that the earliest unit was not the
patriarchal but matriarchal family. The existence of monogamy or polygamy alone could ensure
descent from the male ancestor. But, in primitive societies, polyandry i.e., one woman having
several husbands, was current. When the institution of polyandry prevails, the usual husband–
wife relations are non-existent. In brief the main features of matriarchal system are: transient
marriage relations (temporary group marriage); female kinship; maternal authority; and
succession of only females to family property.

D. Social Contract Theory: According to the social contract theory, the state is the creation of
deliberate human efforts. State is an artificial creation based on the voluntary agreement or
contract among people. It derives its authority from the consent of the people who, through the
instrumentality of a covenant or agreement, organized themselves into a body politic at some
remote period of history. As to the terms of this agreement, individual writers have held different
views.
E) Marxist theory : the state was originated from the split of society in to social classes with
sharp and polarized economic interests. It believed that in per-class society people were living
communally. There was no private property, no market and no institutions. But, the formation of
social classes is associated with the emergence of private property. The emergence of the state is
directly related to the emergence of private property and the need and the need to safeguard it.
Private property leads to the creation of unequal class division. Hence, the state in its function is
a partisan political organization that stands for the interest of the ruling class.
 Forms of State Structure

The classification about the forms of state is related with structure and distribution of state
power. In history, commonly practiced forms of state are unitary and federal forms of state.
Confederations are also other arrangements of states.

Unitary Form of State

Unitarism is a form of state structure characterized by centralization of power and indivisible

sovereignty. The national government is legally supreme over sub-national territorial bodies or
units. In other words, a unitary state is one in which no other governmental body but the central
government has any areas of public that are exclusively under control. In a unitary state, sub
national bodies may be potentially over ruled by the central government in any political decision
they make.

In unitary government, there is only one source of authority whatever local territorial units exist.
Local units are merely agencies of the central government established for its convenience in local
administration. They owe their legal existence to it (their power is increased or diminished or
their legal existence ended). Eg. Britain, the Netherlands, Romania, Poland etc.

Essential Features of Unitary State

Distinctive/principal/features of unitary form of state structure include the following:

A. Supremacy of the Central Legislature (Parliament): There is only one (unicameral)

kind of legislature, which is invariably (always) absolutely supreme. It is the only body
that enacts and monitors the law. Other bodies (sub-national bodies to implement the
laws) are made by the central legislature/parliament.

B. Absence of Subsidiary Sovereign Bodies: Sovereignty is vested in the national/central

government and hence sub national bodies are not sovereign because sovereignty in
unitary form of state structure is indivisible. But subsidiary legislatures can exist when
represented by the central government. However it can be ruined by the central
government at any time.

C. Re-Centralization of Power at the Will of the National/Central Government

Unilaterally: This is to mean that power that may have been decentralized to sub-
 national bodies can be re-centralized at the will of the central government
unilaterally.

D. Unchecked Centralization of Power at the Center: Sub national bodies (regional,

provincial and local bodies) can be reshaped, reorganized and even abolished at will of
the central government.

In modern world, there are factors that inhibit centralized law making processes. These are:

i. Complexity of political, economic, and social conditions within the confines of the state
and at the international level.

ii. Increased population size, and territory (internal demarcation)

iii. Topography of the country

iv. Population settlement

v. People's history, language, culture and psychological make-up etc.

A majority of states in the world are unitary systems. But there are great differences among these
unitary states in the institutions and procedures through which their central government interact
with their territorial subunits. Unitary government does not necessarily mean highly centralized
government. Sub-national units can be granted some kind of autonomy by national government,
which has the legal authority to take it back at any time it wishes. The degree of local autonomy
varies from state to state; for example: in Britain (United Kingdom) the statutes of parliament
(laws made by parliament) have created local governments so that local people may manage their
local affairs. The actions of local councils are not interefered unless they overstep the legal
boundary. In France, on the other hand, council of departments and communes are subject to

Advantages and Disadvantages of unitary state structure

Potential Advantages (merits):

 Its organization is relatively simple

 Conflict of jurisdiction is avoided

 Duplication of civil servants and services are comparatively rare because powers and
functions are centralized at the center/National government.
 Uniformity of law, policy and administration can be maintained throughout the whole state.

 It is advantageous to a country with relatively small area and homogenous population. But it
is not good in a country with widely different economic and social interests and with widely
different standards of political conduct.

Potential Disadvantages (demerits):

 Overburdens the national legislature with numerous local matters. In fast changing world, the
central authority cannot cope with and maintain pace with the issues prevailing.

 Leaves distant authorities and may lack adequate knowledge of local conditions to the
determination of policies and the regulation of matters, which may concern only the localities
affected. Hence, it is relatively less responsible to local needs and interests.

 Tends to be less responsive to local initiatives and interests in public affairs and impairs the
vitality of local government.

 It restrains the self-governance and self–determination of sub national bodies/units.

 It facilitates the development of central bureaucracy.

Federalism: (Federal State Structure)

Federal form of state structure (federal state) is the form of state whereby power is
constitutionally divided between the Federal/National/Central government and Sub-National
(Regional/or provincial) government, each of which is locally supreme in its own sphere. In
federal state, legislative authority is divided between central-federal government-subnational
governments.

It is a direct opposite of unitary government. It provides for an actual division of powers between
two or more independent governments each of which exercises control within its scope of
authority, over the same people. Generally federalism is a political union of different political
units (a creation against particularism and centralism).

Federalism is the basis of the political organization of several states of today. It may vary from
place to place and from time to time. The indispensable quality of the federal state is a
distribution of the powers of government between the federal authority and the federating units.
The federal type of constitution has been adopted and is being adopted by a number of nations in
Africa, Asia and Latin America as a response to their often widely diversified linguistic,
territorial and political traditions. Examples of federal states include the followings among
others: Ethiopia, Nigeria, India, Brazil, USA, Canada, Australia, Germany etc.

Unique Features of Federal State

A. Existence of dual polities: two relatively autonomous levels of government (both the
federal/national government) and sub-national (regional) state levels possess a range of
powers and functions that others cannot encroach.

B. Written constitution: federal state has written (codified) constitution. The written
constitution stipulates formal (constitutional) division of authority between the
federal/central government and sub national governments. The powers and responsibilities of
each level of government are defined in codified or written constitution. Therefore, the
relationship between the federal state and sub national regional states is conducted within a
formal legal framework.

C. Supremacy of federal Government and Constitution: In most of the world states, the
federal government and constitution is superior and supreme over the subnational
government and constitution in conducting key issues and activities of the country. Federal
Authority and federating units have constitution of their own. Though federal units have their
own constitutions, they are accountable to the federal constitution. The federal constitution
contains articles that stipulate (specify) about power sharing (distribution), rights and duties
of the federal authority and units etc.

D. Equal Power shared by the Federal Authority and Federating Units (Decentralized
Federalism): This does not mean they have equal power in one affair, rather the reserve
powers (power applied when required but reserve until then) and federal powers are seen
equally.

E. Absence of Re-centralization of Powers and Authority by the central/federal

government at its will or unilaterally.
F. Absence of amending the constitution or some of its provisions by federal government
unilaterally. Hence, it needs the consent or agreement of the sub national/regional governments
for amending the federal constitution.

Rationales for Preferring Federal Orders to a Unitary State.

There are many rationales for preferring federal orders to a unitary state. The following are
among the major ones.

1. One of the chief reasons for advocating federal system is that, unlike unitary systems, it gives
regional and local interests a constitutionally guaranteed political voice. The states or
provinces exercise a range of autonomous powers and enjoy some measure of representation
in central government through the federal legislature. Sub-units may thus check central
authorities and prevent undue action contrary to the will of minorities.

2. Federal orders may increase the opportunities for citizen participation in public decision–
making; through deliberation and offices in both sub-unit and central bodies that ensure
character formation through political participation among more citizens.

3. Local and regional governments are usually closer to the people and sensitive to their needs.
This ensures that government responds not merely to the overall interest of society, but also
to the specific needs of particular comminutes. Thus, Federations may facilitate efficient
preference maximization more generally, as formalized in the literature of economic and
fiscal federalism.

4. Federal arrangements may promote mobility and hence territorial clustering of individuals
with similar preferences, and allow sub-unit autonomy to experiment and compete for
individuals who are free to move where their preferences are best met. Such mobility towards
sub-unity with like-minded individuals adds to the benefit of local authority over the
provision of public services.

5. Local decisions prevent decision-making from becoming overloaded in the central

government and, thus, avoid inefficiency and bureaucracy.

Processes of Federalism

There are two processes of federalism may be identified.

1. ‘Holding Together’ Federations (Federalism by Disaggregation): They developed from
the unitary state, as government’s response to alleviate threats of secession by territorially
clustered minorities. Such federations often grant sub-units particular domains of
sovereignty, for examples over language and cultural rights in an asymmetric federation;
while maintaining broad scope of actions for federal government and major examples of this
structure include Ethiopia, India, Belgium, Canada and Spain.

2. ‘Coming Together Federations’ (Federalism by Aggregation) : Independent states may

come together by ceding or pooling their sovereign powers in certain domains for the sake of
goods. Such federation is arranged to constrain the center and prevent it from overriding the
sub–units. Examples include USA, Switzerland, Germany and Australia.

Power Distribution in Federal Form of State

The power distribution in federal state is categorized as exclusive powers, concurrent powers and
reserved powers (residual powers or power implied). Let see how these practices of power
distribution works in general and in Ethiopia in particular in the following.

1) Exclusive power: refers to powers not shared but exercised only by federal authority or
federating units. Let's take the Ethiopian federal practice as an example. The following are
excusive powers exercised by the federal authority to: enact laws and constitutional laws and
follows its application; keep the country's constitutional system; foreign Affairs; defense;
printing and circulating of money, etc.

2) Concurrent powers: This refers to the powers exercised commonly by federal authority and
federating units. The following are concurrent powers exercised by the federal authority and
federating to: social sectors (like education, health, labor and social affairs, culture and
information, civil service), planning, transport and communication, internal security,
internal security, agriculture and industry development, trade, tourism, finance, justice…etc.
3) Residual powers/power implied: These are the powers which do not indicated in the
constitution to be exercised either by federal authorities or federating units, but left and will
be given for federating units when it got necessary.

Advantages (Merits) of Federalism

 It is essential to large states

 Combines national unity and local autonomy and the rights of self-government. In
modern political theory and practice, the federal idea is linked with democratic institution
and protection of individual and minority groups.

 Maintains balance between centrifugal (disunifying) and centripetal (integrating) forces

in a state.

 It stimulates interest in government by leaving the determination of local policy in the

hands of local officers and assemblies who are responsible to local electorate.

 It relives the central legislature and authorities from the necessity of devoting time and
energy to the solution of local problems.

Potential Disadvantages of Federalism:

 There is duplication of activities and services, which results in expense. It is not always
easy to deal with a specific situation.

 The division of power between the federal units may lead to conflicts of jurisdiction
between national and local officials or a sort of 'no Man's Land" in which neither authority
takes decisive action.

Confederations

Confederations are voluntary associations of independent states, which rest upon the common
agreement of its members expressed in an elaborate document. Confederations are formed for
common advantage(economic, military, political interest etc) without affecting internal freedom,
structure, lawmaking and enforcing process, external relations of the state confederating. It has
fixed central organs whereby the common wills of its members may be expressed.

Historically confederations the federal of states such as Switzerland, Germany and USA were
preceded by confederations. In this case, the modern arrangements are established around
common defense (NATO) Economic alliance (Common Market of East and Southern Africa-
COMESA, European Economic Community-EEC, Economic community of Western African
States-ECOWAS), neighborhood alliance (OAU, Association of South East Asia Nations-
ASEAN, Organization of American States-OAS), and Politico-Religious alliance (Arab league).
 European Union for instance has around 27 members the purpose of the union is for economic
and political purpose.

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latuia, Lithuania, Netherland, Portugal, Luxemburg, Poland, Romania,
Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Uk, Germany.